Denaturalization and Deportation

The issue that all political parties are ignoring in this campaign is the policy of denaturalization and deportation (hereafter d/d) instituted by the Liberal government in 1995. And I predict that d/d will continue to be ignored by all political parties, as well as the news media, unless forcibly brought to their attention by concerned citizens and legal experts.

Because d/d pits the Holocaust Industry against the various ethnic groups trapped behind the Iron Curtain during the Cold War, a few careless words could spell electoral disaster for the unwary politician bold enough to tread in these minefields. It is a catch-22 situation. Speak out against d/d and you alienate the Holocaust Industry with its vast financial and media resources. Support the Liberal d/d policy and you risk losing the votes of the ethnic groups directly affected, as well as some of the general populace who become educated on the issue.

The historical background of d/d is as follows. Following the Deschenes Commission Report on War Criminals in Canada, the Mulroney government passed Bill C-71 in August 1987 allowing criminal prosecution of people suspected of killing Jews during WWII. Having failed to convict a single victim under the rigorous rules of evidence required by criminal law, the Liberal government in 1995 switched its strategy to the civil procedure of denaturalization and deportation with its lax rules of evidence.

Under civil rules of evidence, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" is replaced by "on the balance of probabilities". A jury of 12 peers is replaced by a single solitary judge. The issue is not whether the accused committed any atrocities, but whether the accused lied to immigration authorities when he immigrated to Canada. There is no appeal process.

[In the cases I am aware of, all the judges ruled that there was no acceptable evidence that the accused had committed atrocities, but in some cases the judge ruled that the accused must have lied about his wartime activities when interviewed by a Visa Control Officer, even though the accused denied ever having undergone such an interview.]

The reader is invited to review the cases of Helmut Oberlander and Vladimir Katriuk to observe the absurdity of the process.

"In summary, it is my opinion that the finding of the learned judge is not supported by the evidence and is unreasonable for the following reasons:
(1) The finding that Oberlander was a member of Ek 10a in the face of the evidence was unreasonable;
(2) There was no admissible and reliable evidence that Oberlander was ever questioned about his wartime activities by a Visa Control Officer and concealed them."

Eric Hafemann, the lawyer for Mr. Oberlander, outlines the corruption of the d/d process in his letter linked hereto. He clearly indicates that the d/d process has deteriorated to the level of political show trials in that "the Minister and the Cabinet are now acting in a quasi-judicial capacity". "The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration [Elinor Caplan, previously Lucienne Robillard] is the complainant in the law suit, and the Attorney General [Anne McLellan, previously Allan Rock], through her Agents, is the prosecutor."

The case of Vladimir Katriuk has been archived at
http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/pakistan/83/katriuk/katriukverdict.html
To paraphrase Judge Roger Salhany, the verdict of Judge Marc Nadon is simply unreasonable. As explained in the Summary Mr. Katriuk did, indeed, enter Canada under a false name which he adopted to avoid being court-martialed and shot for deserting the French Foreign Legion. However, when he applied for Canadian citizenship, he wanted to revert to his real name. His lawyer, Paul Masse, informed the the authorities of the problem, filled out the necessary forms and, in due course, citizenship was granted. We emphasize that Mr. Katriuk acted completely properly and that the authorities were fully aware of the circumstances.

We conclude that
"In essence, Judge Nadon overrules the decision of the Citizenship and Immigration authorities, first, in granting the name change, secondly, in giving Mr. and Mrs. Katriuk landed status in Quebec City on Aug. 14, 1951, and finally, in granting them citizenship on Nov. 10, 1958."

Despite the intervention of many people and the Ukrainian community, in particular, Anne McLellan (and previously Allan Rock) have refused to recognize the unfairness of the d/d policy. Particularly painful to the Ukrainian community was the insistence of Anne McLellan on hiring Neal Sher, who was guilty of perpetrating fraud upon the court in the case of John Demjanjuk, to assist the Canadian War Crimes Unit. A particularly
bitter letter
on the issue can be found in the Geocities web site listed below.

The Ukrainian Canadian Congress has recently made submissions to the federal government concerning the inadequacies of Bill C-16, Bill C-19 and Bill C-31. Unfortunately, the Liberal government and Anne McLellan have not responded positively.

A sarcastic letter to Anne McLellan concerning Bill C-19 is archived at the Geocities web site listed below.

Very recently the UCC has distributed a questionnaire to all candidates requesting their positions on seven issues of particular concern to the Ukrainian community in Canada.

Similarly, the Alberta branch of the Ukrainian Self Reliance League, under its dynamic president Eugene Harasymiw, has written numerous letters to Ms. McLellan and the news media protesting the subversion of our justice system by the Liberal denaturalization and deportation policy. A particularly lucid explanation of the whole issue is his presentation at the annual conference of the USRL in Winnipeg on Oct. 28, 2000.